Gopee v Hurdeen and Others (13440/2011) [2018] ZAKZDHC 1 (9 February 2018)

Gopee v Hurdeen and Others (13440/2011) [2018] ZAKZDHC 1 (9 February 2018)

The court found that the dictates of justice require referral of the application to oral evidence on two limited issues: the authenticity of the applicant's signature on the purchase and sale agreement and whether the applicant complied with her obligations, including payment of the purchase price. The court rejected the respondent's defences regarding locus standi, prescription, and statutory prohibition, finding them without merit. The court admitted the first respondent's supplementary affidavit and expert report but ordered the first respondent to bear the costs of the interlocutory application and wasted costs occasioned by the hearing. The main application is reserved for...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZDHC 1
Parties
Applicant: Luckpathia Gopee; First Respondent: Mahendra Gangaram Hurdeen; Second Respondent: Pravesh Gangaram Hurdeen N.O.; Third Respondent: The Master of the High Court Pietermaritzburg; Fourth Respondent: Neeshendra Gangaram Hurdeen
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2018
Case Number
13440/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application referred for oral evidence on limited issues; interlocutory application granted; costs orders made against first respondent.
Judges
Henriques
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale of Business, Locus Standi, Prescription, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Specific Performance Sale of Business Locus Standi Prescription Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luckpathia Gopee

Applicant

Mahendra Gangaram Hurdeen

First Respondent

Pravesh Gangaram Hurdeen N.O.

Second Respondent

The Master of the High Court Pietermaritzburg

Third Respondent

Neeshendra Gangaram Hurdeen

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's signature on the purchase and sale agreement is genuine and whether the applicant and the deceased were the actual contracting parties.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with her obligations, including payment of the purchase price, in terms of the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim has prescribed under the Prescription Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dictates of justice require referral of the application to oral evidence on two limited issues: the authenticity of the applicant's signature on the purchase and sale agreement and whether the applicant complied with her obligations, including payment of the purchase price. The court rejected the respondent's defences regarding locus standi, prescription, and statutory prohibition, finding them without merit. The court admitted the first respondent's supplementary affidavit and expert report but ordered the first respondent to bear the costs of the interlocutory application and wasted costs occasioned by the hearing. The main application is reserved for...

Court Disposition

Application referred for oral evidence on limited issues; interlocutory application granted; costs orders made against first respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent's supplementary affidavit, annexures, and confirmatory affidavits are admitted and may be used by the first, second, and fourth respondents during the opposed matter.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.